I agree that the focus seems a bit too narrow, if this idea gets off the ground. However, a forum on religious art would be interesting. But I suspect, having spent a lot of my life drifting from island to island of this religion and that and trying to find a place where people who differ about gods play nice, that it would degenerate quickly into a contentious, squabbling pit. A secondary problem that worries me is that there is a difference between believer art and the two kinds of non-believer art: debunking and sympathetic. Believer art can be gorgeous or gorgeously silly, and one puts up with the dewy-eyed Aryan Jesus while looking for the occasional El Greco. But would the forum exclude art that attacked a religious view? By that I mean both the obvious (to Christians) anti-clerical stuff and the less obvious depictions of, say, Aztec ceremonies as murderous sex orgies. How about art that took at unorthodox look at religion--as a simple example, a picture of Jesus and John the Beloved that depicted them as lovers, a picture of Moses that made him look like Mel Brooks, or Our Lady of Guadalupe in a bikini? For me the most unwelcome images would be those that patronize, sentimentalize, and appropriate the religions and religious imagery of other, usually minority, groups. Pictures of the White Buffalo Woman, Spider Grandmother, Monster Slayer, and Deganawida, even pictures of Crazy Horse, Tecumseh, and Pope', created by non-Indians with a non-Indian agenda are a great example of this. Pictures of fake Navajo sand paintings and fake Hopi kachinas are another. There is a word for it in American Indian intellectual communities: appropriation. Folks with a simpler way of looking at things say, "First you stole our land, now you steal our religions?" On the whole, I think the potential for offensiveness--intentional and not--is huge.